Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 187

Wed, 20 Oct 2010

• 1. Re: Fwd: Re: Truth and the Rambam (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Vten Tal Umatar (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Fwd: Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (Danny Schoemann)
• 5. New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: When the Entire Cong Should Say Kaddish with the Mourner (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: Telling All of the Truth About Great Men (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Zvi Lampel)
• 9. New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (cgsteinmetz@juno.com)
• 10. Akeidas Yitzchak as a symbol of hidden goodness in Kedushas Levi (Tal Moshe Zwecker)
• 11. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Zvi Lampel)
• 12. shaveh prutah (David Riceman)
• 13. Telling the Truth About Great Men (Richard Wolberg)
• 14. Re: Telling the Truth About Great Men (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 16. Re: Telling All of the Truth About Great Men (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 17. Re: Telling All of the Truth About Great Men (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: Telling All of the Truth About Great Men (T6...@aol.com)
• 19. telling the truth about great men (Eli Turkel)
• 20. Re: shaveh prutah (Danny Schoemann)
• 21. Re: shaveh prutah (Micha Berger)
• 22. Re: shaveh prutah (David Riceman)
• 23. Some Selections From the Commentary of RSRH on Parshas Vayera (Prof. Levine)
• 24. Theoretical Halakhah (Micha Berger)
• 25. Re: Vten Tal Umatar (Saul Mashbaum)
• 26. Re: Vten Tal Umatar (Rich, Joel)
• 27. Kale Olam (Prof. Levine)
• 28. How much for the mayo? (T6...@aol.com)

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:52:37AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> There's a second important terminological distinction: sometimes the
> Rambam uses Torah in a wide sense, to include philosophy, and sometimes in
> a narrow sense, to include only interpretations of scripture or halacha.
> See the beginning of the Rambam's introduction to MN "It is not here
> intended to explain all of these expression to ... those who confine
> their attention to the study of the holy Law, I mean the canonical law
> alone; for the true knowledge of the Torah is the special aim of this
> and similar works (tr. Friedlander p. 2)," and see HYhT 4:13.

> So yes, in addition to indirectly helping the study of metaphysics by
> ensuring a settled community (cf. H. Teshuva 9:1) the Torah directly
> helps by inculcating some metaphysical doctrines, but by no means all
> of them. See the Rambam's introductory epistle to the MN, where he
> emphasizes the importance of studying philosophy in an orderly way,
> not in the disorderly way induced by Talmud Torah.

> To quote the palace metaphor "Those who arrive at the palace but go round
> about it are those who devote themselves exclusively to the study of the
> practical law; they believe traditionally in true principles of faith,
> and learn the practical worship of God, but are not trained in philosophic
> treatment of the principles of the Law, and do not endeavor to establish
> the truth of their faith by proof. (tr. Friedlander pp. 384-385)"

I'm not sure of the relevence of any of this.

I simply wrote that based on those sections of the Moreh, it appears
that mitzvos were given as a tool by which one can know more about G-d.
Not that there is any guarantee they will be used that way, or that the
person will succeed.

As he writes in Peirush haMishnayos about "Ratzah HQBH lezakos es
Yisrael lefikhakh hirba lahem Torah umitzvos." Many mitzvos mean many
opportunities to have that moment of epiphany in which the requisite
yedi'ah for OhB dawns on the person. Which is also how "yeish mi sheqoneh
olamo besha'ah achas" -- they have that epiphany without trying for it
unsuccessfully for years beforehand.

>>  So bichlal I would say the Rambam's notion of life's purpose is more
>>  the study of theology than metaphysics.

> This is an anachronism; for the Rambam and his contemporaries theology
> and metaphysics were the same subject.

Still, the essence is knowing about the Borei, whether or not one knows
the rest of metaphysics. Regardless of whether the Rambam had the notion
of these being different disciplines.

...
>>  Thus, what the law was becomes a truth to track down. There is no legal
>>  process shaping that law over time; pesaq is either getting to one's
>>  best understanding of what Moshe was told, or an act of getting into
>>  the heads of the enacting Beis Din. Original intent.

>>  This is what I'm saying is uniquely Rambam.

> Really? See Ish HaHalacha (tr. Kaplan pp.37-38): "The ideal of halakhic
> man is the redemption of the world ... via the adaptation of empirical
> reality to the ideal patterns of halakha." Admittedly RYBS was influenced
> by the Rambam. But even the Ramban, in the introduction to Milhamot
> HaShem, agrees that when the Rif's opinion seems inexplicable we shouldn't
> take it as precedent.

I'm not sure how this indicates original intent. In fact, the Ish
haHalakhah finds resolutiuon of creative man and religious man through a
collaborative partnership with the Almighty. RYBS emphasizes the notion
that Hashem gave us a legal process with which to create no less than
I have.

...
>>  The posqim are the ones who are learning lower-case-g gemara, not just
>>  relying on mishnah (Mishnah or Mishneh Torah). The hamon am who never
>>  go beyond the MT aren't expected to have to detemine the original intent
>>  of the law because they aren't to pasqen for themselves.

> I think that's wrong. Remember he advises his student to look at the
> gemara only when the Rif and the Rambam disagree. He was hoping to
> supplant the gemara.

He tells them it's an inefficient use of time. It's also unclear to
me he thought he was writing poseqim or future poseqim. More to follow.

>>  It can't be done using MT as a [base] text.

> Why not?

Because isn't that what the haqdamah to the Yad says in #40-41? That
the originals are for the "me'at bemispar" who have "da'as rechavah,
nefesh chakhomoh, uzeman arukh", and the Yad is for "sedurah befi hakol"
-- the masses?

I see this as saying the Yad only replaces the originals for the masses.
Which makes his advice to his students (non-poseqim) represent the same
thought as what he writes the poseqim in Luneil. Two audiences, one
school of thought. Rather than politely fostering in Luneil an approach
he is trying to replace in his own qehillah. (Which is what I understood
you as suggesting.)

This is still quite a distance from my original topic -- whether the
Rambam sees halakhah as a legal process, a stream down time of evolving
interpretations of law, rather than a scientific process of determining
original intent of the Author of the Torah or the beis din who legislated
a derabban. After all, if he feels his code describes the law as originally
intended, it's only worthwhile to go to the source when you can prove
an error in the codification.

...
>>  To his talmidim, who are also therefore indirectly the Rif's talmidim,
>>  he tells them that the most likely places to find error are where he and
>>  the Rif didn't reach the same conclusion.

> Why does it matter whose talmidim they are? The halakha is only as they
> themselves see it. Furthermore, isn't it possible that the Rambam,
> who was greatly influenced by the Rif, is likely to make the same error?

Only if they have a reason to suspect an error, so they look and find an
error. Otherwise, the Rambam believes that a pesaq is binding on those
talmidim to whom it was nispasheit. (Haqdamah #32-22.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 19/10/2010 11:58 AM, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
> RMF says that saying since rain is beneficial in the early fall
> in chu"l  [...]

> [...] R. Vozner [...] holds (unlike RMF) that rain is unneed in
> chu"l in the early fall

Surely it depends where in chu"l.  For instance, I don't think anyone
disputes that in Bavel, and in any place with the same agricultural
calendar, one may not say Tal Umatar before late November, and that
if one did one must repeat Sh"E.  The Rosh is explicitly talking about
Provence and Spain, which have climates almost identical to that of EY;
he gives no opinion on other places.  I haven't looked at Betzel
Hachochma, but it's likely that he is talking about Australia, with a
completely different climate.  This is not the sort of thing one can
legislate for all of chu"l -- which is precisely the Rosh's point!

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

  RMB:
> I'm not sure of the relevence of any of this.
You started by arguing about whether the Rambam views halacha as 
evolving.  I was primarily interested in a side point: you seemed to be 
arguing that, according to the Rambam, halacha is an alternative to 
metaphysics.  I think that's false, with the exception that, according 
to the Rambam, halacha provides an introduction to a few select 
metaphysical doctrines (like God's existence and unity).

RMB:
<<I simply wrote that based on those sections of the Moreh, it appears
> that mitzvos were given as a tool by which one can know more about G-d.
> Not that there is any guarantee they will be used that way, or that the
> person will succeed.
But according to the Rambam there are degrees of knowledge about God (in 
fact, he writes about it as what one would now call an infinite 
progression).  Halacha gets you only so far.
> Me:
>> Really? See Ish HaHalacha (tr. Kaplan pp.37-38): "The ideal of halakhic
>> man is the redemption of the world ... via the adaptation of empirical
>> reality to the ideal patterns of halakha."
> RMB:
> I'm not sure how this indicates original intent.
RYBS's "ideal patterns of halakha" are the "truths to track down" you 
attribute to the Rambam.
> RMB:
> Because isn't that what the haqdamah to the Yad says in #40-41? That
> the originals are for the "me'at bemispar" who have "da'as rechavah,
> nefesh chakhomoh, uzeman arukh", and the Yad is for "sedurah befi hakol"
> -- the masses?
No, the Rambam's introduction is a common motif of advertising: now you 
have dozens of tools in your kitchen but you can replace them all with 
my new slicingdicingcrushingmincing machine; now you have dozens of 
books in your home to help your schoolkid, now you can replace them all 
with my new superduperencyclopedia.  The Rambam says everyone "katan 
v'gadol", can replace their entire Beis Midrash with the MT and a Tanach.

RMB:
> This is still quite a distance from my original topic -- whether the
> Rambam sees halakhah as a legal process, a stream down time of evolving
> interpretations of law, rather than a scientific process of determining
> original intent of the Author of the Torah or the beis din who legislated
> a derabban.
But it is related.  To the extent that he viewed halacha as a purveyor 
of mtaphysical truth he is less likely to view it as changeable.  I 
suspect he was more sensitive to the viability of prospective multiple 
psak than you think.  It's only retrospective multiple traditions that 
really bothered him.
> RMB:
> Only if they have a reason to suspect an error, so they look and find an
> error. Otherwise, the Rambam believes that a pesaq is binding on those
> talmidim to whom it was nispasheit. (Haqdamah #32-22.)
This is not so obvious.  The Rambam knew quite well that the gemara 
leaves multiple options in many places; there is quite a difference 
between an error and a disagreement (it's not binding on the Rambam, but 
I refer you once again to the Ramban's intorduction to Milhamos 
HaShem).  According to you, however, the Rambam holds that if you 
disagree with your rebbe you may not hold like him (ein l'dayan ela mah 
she'einav ro'os), so why should his psak be binding on his students?

Incidentally I don't know what "#32-22" means, so I don't know what in 
the introduction you were pointing to.

David Riceman

From: "Tal Moshe Zwecker" <tal.zwec...@gmail.com>

> I may be wrong but I was under the impression that:

> 2.They actually believe that it is halachically preferrable since the side
> by side bor has the issue where if the water in the otzar falls below the
> line of the hashaka hole the hashaka ceases! whereas bor on bor there
>  is no such fear at all

Pray tell, why would that be a problem? Once Hashaka happens, the
neighbouring well is a Mikva, even after the Hashaka ceases.

At least that's what I've always been taught...

- Danny

RMB wrote:
> But a reminder -- no one pasls, and no one holds only BAGB is
> kosher. (See IM YD I #111.)

The Chazon Ish reportedly said he never saw a mikva that wasn't
kosher.. (And also that he never saw an eruv that wasn't pasul).

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

R' Danny Schoemann wrote:
> > Does this also apply to saying this identical Kaddish at a Siyum; do all the
> > participants recite the declaration and the hope to see a restored Yrm?

> No idea; anybody know the source for saying the long Kaddish at a
> Siyum? For that matter, I've seen Temanim say the long Kaddish
> withTiskabal at Mincha.

In the days of the Geonim, kadish was still quite flexible, built
around the core of Yehei Shemei Rabbah, but otherwise as malleable as
a mi shebeirakh, but in Aramaic. Blessings for the Reish Geluta and
the Geonim were not uncommon, it seems.

So, do not consider our common minhag regarding what is said when, as
a necessary outcome.

Anyway, it seems that the long kaddish of the grave was originally
recited after noteworthy shiurim, the Pirka, for instance.

While not my usual source, I must refer you to a thorough article,
based on geniza sources, by Neil Danzig, on this and Yequm Purqan,
entitled The Origins of Yequm Purqan and Qaddish de-Hadata.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

R' Levine asked:

> Is it really the Torah approach to "cover up"
> things that do not fit with the conceptions that
> some of how a gadol is supposed to be? I think
> that the answer is a resounding "No!"

R' Doniel Schuman replied:

> Well, how do you explain that Terach's demise was
> conviniently mentioned at the end of Noach, in order
> to fudge the fact that he lived until Avraham was 130
> years old? The correct location would have been
> around Chayei Sarah!

> Talk about "cover up".

But the Torah does give us the tools to piece this one back together.

More seriously, the reason for that chronological anomaly is mostly
because of ein muqdam umeu'har baTorah: the Torah is not strictly
chronologically arranged, but puts rather more emphasis on a thematic
arrangement. With the recounting of Tera'h's death, the chapter of
Avr(ah)am's pre-Kenaan times is closed, never to be reopened again.
(See Ramban who argues against Rashi's chronology of Berit Bein
haBetarim. That discussion is illuminating in light of our
discussion).

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

  RDR:
>> ...I suspect that it really bothered him that the 13 midot shehatorah
>> nidreshet bahem do not yield unique answers, and that may be why he
>> claims that few laws were deduced from them.
RZL:
> The Rambam says in Sefer HaMItzvos Shoresh Shayni that "rov" laws were
> deduced by them, and being that there were thousands that Osniel ben
> Kenaz reconstructed, the Rambam says, the number that were not forgotten
> must have been much more.
RDR: See the hakdamah to PhM (tr. Kafih p.11): The first class of 
halachot includes those which are deduced without ambiguity using MSNB, 
and the third class consists exclusively of those which were deduced 
with ambiguity using MSNB.  ...

RZL: ...[Again, the Rambam writes] that "rov" halachos resulted from 
these methods and that the 1,700 halachos that Osniel ben Kenaz 
reconstructed were only a fraction of the total number of laws generated 
through the 13 middos.
>> RDR: (...)
> [In the hakdama to PhM t]he Rambam was making a necessary distinction 
> between classes of laws....  The first class can be resolved by a 
> person saying "I have a tradition", and the third class cannot.  The 
> first class consist of traditions, many of which, in addition, can be 
> deduced by MSNB.

> I suggest that the halachos of ObK were of this category, and the 
> deduction jogged people's memory.  Cf. Yadayim 4:3 "al tahushu 
> l'minyanchem" (there are several other sugyos where something like 
> this happens as well).

> David Riceman
I would love to say the Rambam held this way. It would mean that the 
majority of law-details we have are laws we received intact from Moshe 
Rabbeynu (the 13 middos only serving to show where they are indicated in 
Scripture), and only a minority  were actually generated by applying the 
interpretation rules. (And it would somewhat alleviate a problem: 
Whereas in the Sefer HaMItzvos he says that he wrote in the Haksama to 
PhM that Chazal were "motzi" "rov" halachos through the 13 rules of 
interpretation, I cannot find anywhere in that work where he actually 
says that, unless he holds it's implicit in the term he used there, 
referring to generated halachic details, as "anafim min anafim.")

However, even from the very beginning, Shoresh Shayni reads to me that 
the reverse is true: that  the pesukim-associated ("sheh-yismachu-hu") 
law-details that were mekuballim from Moshe were the exception that one 
finds in the Talmud (relatively) only "p'amim"--although of course they 
included all the ikkarim. First the Rambam writes they were "motzie 
(KPCH has "nilmadim") through the 13 rules "rov dinei haTorah," and 
there was sometimes machlokess over them, and then adds that there were 
also other dinim that were mekuballim that were (therefore) not subject 
to being contested. So the "rov" is going on the rule-generated dinim. 
And it continues to read that way to the end.

But even if I am mistaken, and by "rov dinei haTorah" the Rambam is 
referring to all inexplicit dinim--both mekuballim MiMoshe and 
generated--and I would have no proof that the rule-generated details 
outnumber the mekuballos dinim reinforced by the rules of 
interpretation--I still don't see any support for the reverse, that the 
Rambam "claims that few laws were deduced from them."

Where do you see that?

Zvi Lampel

There is an excellent sefer on Mikva'os, written by a R' Katz (not a L,
if those that it matters to), called Miveh Mayim, where he goes through
all the different shitos and suggestions of how to build a Mikva,
describing the pros and cons of each on (the CI, Divrei Chaim, Chelkas
Yaakov, Rashab (and more)). There is no "one standard way" to build a
mikvah. In it he expains exactly the issue and advantage of bor al gav
bor.
I highly recommended it for anyone really interested in understanding
this topic.
CGS

In Parashas Ki Savo The Kedushas Levi twice mentions the Akeidas Yitzchak
as an example of an event where goodness is hidden and secreted. Any idea
to what he is referring exactly?

"May Hashem command the blessing for you in your storehouses..."

(Devarim 28:8)

This is the meaning of ?May Hashem command His blessing for you? ? this is
referring to berachah that actually comes from you, because of your own
awakening. And this shefa is ?b?asamecha,? in a hidden place [????,
?hidden,? and ?????, ?your storehouses,? have the same linguistic root].
The favor and goodness is hidden and secreted, just like the binding of
Yitzchak.

"May Hashem open for you His treasure-trove of goodness, the heavens, to provide rain for your land in its time..."

(Devarim 28:12)

This is why the verse concludes, ?to provide rain for your land in its
time? ? because sometimes the Blessed Creator sends goodness and bounty
that is obviously good and revealed, and at other times the Blessed Creator
sends the good in a hidden manner, cloaked as something negative, such as
in the binding of Yitzchak.

Kol Tuv,
R' Tal Moshe Zwecker
Director Machon Be'er Mayim Chaim
Chassidic Classics in the English Language
www.chassidusonline.com
chassidusonl...@gmail.com
Phone: 972-2-992-1218 / Cell: 972-54-842-4725
VoIP: 516-320-6022 / eFax: 1-832-213-3135
join the mailing list here: http://groups.google.com/group/beermayimchaim 
Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, Pirkei Avos more!
Discuss Chassidus http://groups.google.com/group/torahchassidusdiscussion
Author Page https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B003VH9D48
LinkedIn: http://il.linkedin.com/in/rabbitalmoshe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101020/d68b1804/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/19/2010 8:47 PM, I, Zvi Lampel, wrote:
> Shoresh Shayni reads to me that the reverse is true: that  the 
> pesukim-associated ("sheh-yismachu-hu") law-details that were 
> mekuballim from Moshe were the exception that one finds in the Talmud 
> (relatively) only "p'amim"--although of course they included all the 
> ikkarim. First the Rambam writes they were "motzie (KPCH has 
> "nilmadim") through the 13 rules "rov dinei haTorah," and there was 
> sometimes machlokess over them, and then adds that there were also 
> other dinim that were mekuballim that were (therefore) not subject to 
> being contested. So the "rov" is going on the rule-generated dinim. 
> And it continues to read that way to the end.
Add to this the fact that the Rambam refers to the 13-middos mitzvos 
that amount to "many thousands" as "mah sheh-/nilmad/ heim anafim min 
ha-shorashim sheh-ne'emru lo l'Moshe b'Sinai  b'biur" (that which was 
learned were branchlets [anafim] [extending] from the 
explicitly-said-to-Moshe Rabbeynu roots. And that  the in the passage 
about the disputes between Shammai and Hillel, the Rambam uses the 
description of "/anfei anafim/" referring to laws that are 
unquestionably not mekuballim

The Rambam also notes both in his Int. to Mishneh Torah and his Int. to 
PhM that the enterprise of /generating/ law details through th e13 midos 
took place in every generation from Moshe Rabbeynu and on. This alone 
would seem to make such 13-midos-associated law details the majority 
over the ones that were mekubal.

> Zvi Lampel

  Suppose a store gives away such copious amounts of coupons that there 
is no secondary market, the coupons say on their face that they're worth 
one tenth of a prutah, but that they entitle the bearer to a discount of 
3 prutos on every dinar of purchases.  Is the coupon shaveh prutah? How 
do you know?

David Riceman

D.S. asked:
Well, how do you explain that Terach's demise was conviniently
mentioned at the end of Noach, in order to fudge the fact that he
lived until Avraham was 130 years old? The correct location would have
been around Chayei Sarah!

Perhaps I do not understand the question, but who ever said that Terach was a great man?
He was an idolator and we know anyways that ein mukdam um'uchar baTorah. This is not
the only place in the Torah where chronology is out of context.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101020/fced25af/attachment-0001.htm>

On 20/10/2010 9:06 AM, Richard Wolberg wrote:
> D.S. asked:
> Well, how do you explain that Terach's demise was conviniently
> mentioned at the end of Noach, in order to fudge the fact that he
> lived until Avraham was 130 years old? The correct location would have
> been around Chayei Sarah!

> Perhaps I do not understand the question, but who ever said that Terach was a great man?
> He was an idolator and we know anyways that /ein mukdam um'uchar baTorah. /This is not
> the only place in the Torah where chronology is out of context.

*Avraham* was a great man, and the Torah deliberately fudges the date
of Terach's death so that it shouldn't be obvious that Avraham neglected
his father's kavod.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

> RZL: ...[Again, the Rambam writes] that "rov" halachos resulted from 
> these methods and that the 1,700 halachos that Osniel ben Kenaz 
> reconstructed were only a fraction of the total number of laws 
> generated through the 13 middos.
But look at the first sentence in that shoresh [#2].  He says this 
includes both peirushim that come from Sinai and peirushim that don't.  
See Heller's footnote #1 which offers two alternate translations of your 
"resulted from", one of which is "notzieim", which I would render as 
"can be deduced from".  Perhaps an Arabic speaker can help us out.
RZL:
> But even if I am mistaken, and by "rov dinei haTorah" the Rambam is 
> referring to all inexplicit dinim--both mekuballim MiMoshe and 
> generated--and I would have no proof that the rule-generated details 
> outnumber the mekuballos dinim reinforced by the rules of 
> interpretation--I still don't see any support for the reverse, that 
> the Rambam "claims that few laws were deduced from them."
See the Hakdama to PhM (tr. Kafih, p. 9) where the Rambam explains (my 
translation of Kafih): "Similarly there is no argument about the 
analogous aspect of every mitzva, because they are traditions stemming 
from Moses, and the sages said about these and similar instances "the 
entire Torah, its general principles and specific details and [I can't 
think of a good translation for dikdukeha] came from Sinai."  But even 
though they are traditional and are not disputed it is possible to 
deduce them from precise reading of Scripture using the MSNB<I 
translated this last phrase quite loosely>."

If Hazal say "the entire Torah" when we know they don't mean it 
literally, I think we are entitled to understand it as "a large majority".

David Riceman

R' YL: 
> Is it really the Torah approach to "cover up"
> things that do not fit with the conceptions that
> some of how a gadol is supposed to be? I think
> that the answer is a resounding "No!"

It would seem to me that when the Torah (i.e., Hashem) decided to share
something negative about an otherwise great man one should not second guess
its (i.e., His) judgment. But when a biographer decides to share something
negative, he should be very careful to make sure that his judgment is as
good as the Torah's. (He should also make sure that he has a different
p'shat in the Gemara in Berachos 19a, Kol Hamesaper Achar Matasan (or,
Mitasan) Shel Talmidei Chachamim Nofel B'Gehenom.)

KT,
MYG

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 03:03:42AM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: It would seem to me that when the Torah (i.e., Hashem) decided to share
: something negative about an otherwise great man one should not second guess
: its (i.e., His) judgment...

Hashem is actually quite critical, compared to "kol ha'omer David
chatah..."

It would seem that in terms of values, He chooses to teach us from mistakes
well over preserving reputation of the deceased. Something to emulate?

Still:
:                      (He should also make sure that he has a different
: p'shat in the Gemara in Berachos 19a, Kol Hamesaper Achar Matasan (or,
: Mitasan) Shel Talmidei Chachamim Nofel B'Gehenom.)

Although not necessarily when we're discussing something the gadol in
question considered beshitah to be mutar or even laudible.

By not telling over that the Netziv read Haskalishe newspapers on Shabbos
we are not only misportaying the man, we are misrepresenting his pesaq
and his mehalekh. We are doing a disservice to the Netziv by lessening
the impact of his derekh on the future in favor of some new one.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

From: Danny Schoemann <doni...@gmail.com>
> Is it really  the Torah approach to "cover up"
> things that do not fit with the  conceptions that
> some of how a gadol is supposed to be? I think
>  that the answer is a resounding "No!" [--RYL]

Well, how do you explain  that Terach's demise was conveniently
mentioned at the end of Noach, in order  to fudge the fact that he
lived until Avraham was 130 years old? The correct  location would have
been around Chayei Sarah!

Talk about "cover  up".

- Danny

If the Torah really wanted to cover it up, it would have left out Terach's  
death entirely.  There are plenty of things that are left out of the Torah, 
 for various reasons.  (E.g., did Yisro leave or stay?)  

The fact that Avraham left while his father was still alive is /not/  
covered up.  Rather, it is presented in such a way as to suggest what  Rashi kind 
of says:  normally, it is not right to leave your  father in his old age 
and never see him again.  It is acceptable for a  tzaddik to do it in 
exceptional circumstances, like if Hashem tells him  to.   (Or if your father is a 
rasha.)

The people who were not supposed to notice that Avraham abandoned his  
father were his contemporaries, "so people shouldn't say...."  The  circuitous 
way that the Torah provides this information suggests a  circuitousness in 
the way the information percolated to Avraham's  contemporaries.  The 
information is not hidden from us.  And nowhere  is there any suggestion that 
Avraham actually did anything wrong by  leaving his father -- on the contrary, 
leaving his father, against all natural  instinct, was one of his ten big tests.

--Toby Katz
==========

-------------------- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101021/115d1cc1/attachment-0001.htm>

<<*Avraham* was a great man, and the Torah deliberately fudges the date
of Terach's death so that it shouldn't be obvious that Avraham neglected
his father's kavod.>>

The question is why only here?
Rashbam criticizes Avraham for making the treaty with Avimelech
(Ramban is in favor)
while Ramban criticizes Sarah for her treatment of Hagar.

In general the commentaries find individual events in which they feel the avot
made mistakes. If so why is the Torah worried about the kavod Avraham
did or didn't give to an idolatrous father. It is not even that clear
that leaving his
father was a lack of kavod, Yaakov stayed away a long time by Lavan and that
is mentioned and possibly connected to Yosef being away for so long.

as an aside modern day poskim discuss the question of someone leaving
their parents
to make aliyah to EY

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net> asked: Suppose a store gives
away such copious amounts of coupons that there is no secondary
market, the coupons say on their face that they're worth one tenth of
a prutah, but that they entitle the bearer to a discount of 3 prutos
on every dinar of purchases.  Is the coupon shaveh prutah? How do you
know?

How is a coupon different from any other Shtar (legal document) that
has no intrinsic monetary value?

- Danny

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:57:43PM +0200, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: How is a coupon different from any other Shtar (legal document) that
: has no intrinsic monetary value?

The question this raises in my head is whether there are many cases
where extrinsic value is taken into account.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

RDS:
> How is a coupon different from any other Shtar (legal document) that
> has no intrinsic monetary value?
See the Rama's comment on bearer bonds in HM 66:1.

David Riceman

Below are some selections from the commentary of RSRH on this week's Parsha

18: 2 He looked up and saw that three men were 
standing there, turned toward him. When he saw 
this, he ran from the door of the tent
to meet them, and bowed down to the ground;

Many confuse prophecy ? Jewish prophecy ? with delirium and
divination, ecstasy and clairvoyance. As a result, ecstasy is thought
to lead to prophecy, and prophecy is considered merely a higher
stage of ecstasy.

Even Jewish philosophers are not free of the notion that prophecy
requires Hisbodidus ? spatial and spiritual abstraction, physical and
mental isolation. Yet a vast gulf separates all these from true prophecy.
What leads to God?s nearness is not abstract contemplation, but, rather,
a life of vitality, flowing from the Source of life. Jewish prophecy is not
the product of a morbid imagination, of an agitated abnormal condition;
rather, it is part of healthy life, a product of wakefulness and
joyful creativity. As our Sages say: ?Prophecy does not come when there
is sorrow or sloth, frivolity or levity, chatter or foolishness; it comes
as a result of joy in the performance of a mitzvah? (Shabbos 30b).

18: 19 For I have turned My particular attention 
to him, so that he may command his children and 
his household after him to keep the
way of God, to practice dutiful benevolence, and 
justice, so that God may bring upon Avraham that which He said about him.

If one is not a devoted follower of God, he is under God?s general
providence. But if one walks in the light of God?s Presence; if one considers
himself merely an instrument of God on earth, then God in turn
watches over him with special care, he is favored with God?s special
providence. As we seek God, so does He seek us. If one walks with God
B'keri  (Vayikra 26:23), incidentally; if doing God?s Will is not one?s first
and foremost aim, but, rather, one pursues other endeavors, leaving to
chance whether these endeavors coincide with God?s Will, then God,
too, walks with him ???? and leaves him to the vicissitudes of chance.
But as for the righteous, who devote themselves to being instruments
of God?s Will on earth, who regard doing His Will as the sole aim of
their lives and actions, and cast their burden and all their needs on God
their Provider ? He goes before them with His guiding hand and
watches over them with His special providence. This special providence
is called Yeida

Walking with God in the way of moral purity is 
the precondition and root of just and upright
human relationships.

Moreover, Sodom shows us that a pleasure-seeking world addicted
to sensual enjoyment, a world that ultimately values a person only to
the extent that he is useful or provides pleasure ? precisely such a
world is likely to twist the idea of strict justice into a double-edged
sword of shameless sophism, which argues: ?What I
have is mine and what you have is yours? (see Avos 5:10). According
to this world-view, egoism is a sacred principle of life, helplessness is
considered a crime, and offering assistance is considered a folly and an
offense against the public welfare. Under the rule of the principle of
Sodom, entitlements are dictated only by achievements, not by needs;
the poor and the needy are despised. Only a wealthy man, like Lot, who
is bound to provide jobs and profit, is perhaps granted rights; but ?begging
is forbidden,? and those who cannot support themselves are punished,
imprisoned, and deported.

But not by external means will the world by righted. This cannot
be imposed by governments or enforced by legislation, nor can it be
achieved through worldwide revolution which unleashes the Red beast
against the palaces and manors of the wealthy. Only an inner revolution
of mind and soul can produce a generation of people educated to a
sense of duty; only such a revolution can produce people committed
to duty who will transmit the testament of the patriarch ? articulated
by God ? as a living teaching to children and grandchildren: v'shomru
derech HaShem la'asos tzedaka umishpot.

The educational goal is not religious faith, but observance of the
commandments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101021/86474ce9/attachment-0001.htm>

RARakeffetR likes retelling the story of the time RYBS's talmidim managed
to convince him to spend Shabbos with them in YU. To experience Shabbos
with the Rebbe. Came the end of Shabbos, they got a seat ready for the
person to say Havdalah sitting. The Rav was surprised that they knew he
held that havdalah should be said sitting. R' Moshe Soloveitchik held
(I think R' Chaim too) that Havdalah closes the sequence (an extended
se'udah) started at Qiddush -- and thus should be said sitting,
like Qiddush is. But RYBS taught this to them just a couple of weeks
before! And so they asked their rebbe if perhaps he had forgotten giving
that shiur on Qiddush. And he said he hadn't -- but he was speaking
sevara, theory. How did they know he would want it followed lemaaseh?

RRW has made that chiluq here too. He showed that the Gra didn't expect
his theory to become people's practice. And in fact "Minhag haGra",
turning his ideas into lemaaseh, was something the Gra's talmidim started
doing after their rebbe's petirah.

Well, I think I found an example in the Y-mi, Maaseros 1:5, 6b.

Rebbe asked R' Shim'on his son to go upstairs and get a gerogeros (cake
of dried figs). R' Shim'on asked -- but aren't they muqtzah? The upstairs
was long-term storage, usable but without any intent before Shabbos to use
it on Shabbos. Rebbe replies, "Va'adayin at lezu? There is no prohibition
of muqtzah except dates and grapes." Dates and grapes are dried, they are
useless halfway between grape and raisin, and therefore they are muqtzah
during this half-state. But this isn't a simple machloqes, because Rav
Yehudah (spelled Yuda, in the Vilna ed) himself was the source for the
notion that the gerogeres should be muqtzah. before Shabbos to use it
on Shabbos, would be muqtzah.

The sugya to me reads that R' Yehudah spoke sevara, and was surprised his
son was following it "You're still on that kick?" rather than following
the halakhah as accepted lemaaseh.

Yes, it is possible R' Yehudah changed his mind, but to me it seems
unlikely that he would place blame on R' Shim'on for following the old
pesaq, rather than informing his son that his shitah chance. The tenor
suggests that R' Shim'on should have known better than to follow what
R' Yuda was quoted saying.

Not muchrach. I'm not proving. Just discussing peshat in today's Y-mi
daf.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I wrote:

RMF says that saying since rain is beneficial in the early fall
in chu"l  [...]

[...] R. Vozner [...] holds (unlike RMF) that rain is unneed in
chu"l in the early fall
RZseo wrote:
>Surely it depends where in chu"l. ...

RMF is more specific than what I wrote; he wrote "bimkomoteinu, shetzrichim
gshamim mitchilat hasha"; this presumably refers to the United States, since
the tshuva was written in 1962.
RVosner writes "chu"l" throughout the tshuva.
See the Aruch HaShulchan to OCh 117, where he states that in "Europe"
(presumably Eastern Europe) rains isn't really needed in the winter at all.
In fact, it is needed davka in the spring, when the fields are sowed.

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101021/5fc8ec2d/attachment-0001.htm>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

RMF is more specific than what I wrote; he wrote "bimkomoteinu, shetzrichim
gshamim mitchilat hasha"; this presumably refers to the United States,
since the tshuva was written in 1962.
RVosner writes "chu"l" throughout the tshuva.
See the Aruch HaShulchan to OCh 117, where he states that in "Europe"
(presumably Eastern Europe) rains isn't really needed in the winter at all.
In fact, it is needed davka in the spring, when the fields are sowed.

Saul Mashbaum

=========================
Which raises the general  question  of defining a "universe" for such
issues as weather (geographic features? political boundaries?Jewish
residence?), miyut hamatzui (e.g. treifot-which type/area cows do we look
at).
We've discussed some of these before iirc.
KT
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101022/2b5eec58/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is a selection from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 21

33 [Avraham] planted a tree in Be?er Sheva, and 
there he proclaimed in the name of God, the God of the future.

The Name of God joined to ?Olam? ? a Name that, as noted above,
occurs only twice in Tenach? has been planted on our lips by our Sages
more than any other Name; we recite it regularly. They instituted this
practice after the term ?Olam? had also taken on the meaning of ?world?
? i.e., the most concrete and actual reality. Through the two meanings
of this term, our Sages have given us an invaluable insight:

People commonly cope with distress by turning their thoughts to
the future. By looking to the future, they seek solace for a disconsolate
present. Our Sages did the opposite. Just when we had become a laughingstock
to all the peoples of the world, our Sages taught us to look
upon every moment of the present as part of the future. They
taught us to look upon thunder and lightning, upon blossoms, food,
and tidings, upon everything that happens to us and all that we experience
in the present, as part of eternity, and to recognize God as Melech HaOlam,
Who directs the hidden future as it gradually unfolds in the course
of time (see Berachos 54a). For every moment truly lived is of the essence
of that eternity which we all will ultimately share and can attain even
in this life, if we are what we ought to be.

An even deeper truth may lie here. It appears that, in Tenach, the
term ?Olam? refers not only to the hidden past and future, but generally
to all that is hidden from our eyes and invisible to us. For it would
be presumptuous to say that only the past and the future are hidden
from us. Even the most actual present is fundamentally and truly an
Olam. All actuality is rooted in the nelam which alone represents the
highest reality. Forms and shapes change; but the dynamic force, the
hidden that lies at the base of everything revealed, the abstract, the
nelam ? that is what endures forever, the only real thing on which one
can rely. As it says in Koheles (3:11):  ?God
has arranged all things beautifully in relation to one another, but He
has also put in man?s heart a touch of the hidden, of the transcendent,
without which man will never fathom even the least of the work that
God has made.?

The foregoing idea could be what caused the association of the
concept ?world? with the term ?Olam.? For the real world is truly an
Olam. Our Sages wished to train us to look beyond every natural phenomenon,
beyond its revealed aspect, to its underlying hidden aspect;
to look to God, Melech HaOlam, Who directs and controls all the hidden
forces. Everything, all that surrounds us in this ?world of riddles,? is
part of His kingdom. He is also Elokeinu, to Whom we ? our powers,
lives, and destinies ? belong. We are to devote ourselves to Him with
all our energies, to do His Will and to increase His glory, for blessing
? Baruch.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101022/294a1aa0/attachment-0001.htm>

Here's a question of the type that I think Avodah-ites  (Ovdim?) sometimes 
like to discuss.  

I bought a large jar of mayonnaise, and the lady at the checkout  pointed 
out that it was on special that week,  "buy one, get one  free," so I might 
as well get a second jar -- which I did, even though I didn't  need so much 
mayo and now have extra mayo sitting on a shelf, not to be used  probably for 
many weeks.

The mayo cost, let's say, four dollars, something like that.

A few days later my neighbor asked me if I could spare a couple of spoons  
of mayo for her kids' lunch, as she was out of mayo.  I told her I could do  
better, I had a whole extra unopened jar of mayonnaise  on the shelf, which 
 I happily gave her.  She asked me how much she owed me for it, and this  
left me with a question.

1.  The replacement cost of the mayo, weeks from now when I need some  
more, will be $4 -- so I should charge her $4?

2.  The actual cost of the mayo to me was zero -- since I only got  that 
second jar because it was "get one free."  So I should charge her  nothing? If 
I charge her anything, I am stealing from her?

3.  In reality, no matter how the store advertises it, what I got was  two 
jars of mayo for four dollars.  So I should charge her two dollars for  one 
jar?

I will tell you what I did after you tell me what I should have done.   
Thank you.

--Toby Katz
==========

--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20101024/f8e4626b/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 187
***************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."